Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1249 (MP)

Kalyan Singh Senger v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-10-17

VISHAL MISHRA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Challenge is being made to the transfer order dated 04.10.2022 (Annexure P-2); whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Sub Divisional Officer Forest Seoni Malwa (General) Hoshangabad (General) Forest Division to Sub Divisional Officer, Nepa Nagar (General) Burhanpur (General) Forest Division. His name finds place at Serial No.25 in the impugned transfer order. 2. It is submitted that earlier the petitioner was transferred from Sub Divisional Officer Forest Sohagpur (General) Hoshangabad (General Forest Division to Sub Divisional Officer, Forest Seoni Malwa (General) Hoshangabad (General) Forest Division vide order transfer order dted 16.12.2019 and within a short span of one year he has again been transferred. The petitioner is due for retirement on 31.10.2023, therefore, the transfer order is in violation of the transfer policy. Apart from this, certain medical ailments are pointed out by the petitioner. He has relied upon the order passed by this Court in the case of Geeta Jha Disoriya vs. State of M.P. and other (W.P.18675 of 2021); wherein, in similar circumstances, the petition was disposed of directing the authorities to consider the representation and till the representation is decided the petitioner was permitted to continue at the present place of posting. He has prayed for similar relief to be extended to the petitioner. 3. Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer submitted that the grounds which have been raised in the petition are not made out calling interference in the transfer order in view of the judgments passed by the Division Bench in the case of R.S. Chaudhary and Others v. State of M.P. and Others, ILR (2007) MP 1329 and in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556. 4. But he fairly submits that the petitioner is due to retirement on 31.10.2023. A representation filed by him will be considered by him by the authorities expeditiously. 5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that the petitioner was transferred from Sub Divisional Officer Forest Sohagpur (General) Hoshangabad (General Forest Division to Sub Divisional Officer, Forest Seoni Malwa (General) Hoshangabad (General) Forest Division vide order transfer order dted 16.12.2019 and within a short span of one year he has again been transferred. The petitioner is due for retirement on 31.10.2023. The petitioner is due for retirement on 31.10.2023. The this Court in identical circumstances the case of Geeta Jha Disoriya vs. State of M.P. and other (W.P.18675 of 2021) dated 17.09.2021 has held as under:- "With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. Challenge is being made to the order dated 27.08.2021 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the office of Commissionercum- Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhopal to office of Joint Commissioner-cum-Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sagar at a distant of more than 170 Kms. The solitary ground for challenging the transfer order is that the petitioner is at the fag end of her service career and is due to retire on 13.12.2022. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the transfer at the fag end of the service career of the petitioner is violative of condition of the transfer policy. He has placed reliance upon the orders passed by this Court on 22.07.2020 in Writ Petition No.9658/2020 [Dr. Jasram Trivedia Vs. State of M.P.] wherein, this Court considering the fact that the transfer is violative of Clause 11.8 of the transfer policy as the petitioner was transferred at the fag end of his service career has interfered in the transfer order and disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to decide the pending representation and till the decision on the representation, the petitioner was permitted to continue at the present place of posting. He has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ripudaman Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2019 SCC Online MP 1658 wherein considering Article 38(1) of the Constitution of India, the Court has held as under :- "For a public servant to strive towards excellence, it is of utmost importance that fair and equitable opportunities are made available by the State. One of the means to achieve this goal of providing equitable opportunities by the State is to make available healthy and stress-free working environment for a public servant. A stress-free working environment is inter alia possible when the State, functioning as an employer, while effecting transfers takes into account not only the administrative exigencies/public interest but also the genuine personal problems of the public servant liable to be transferred. A stress-free working environment is inter alia possible when the State, functioning as an employer, while effecting transfers takes into account not only the administrative exigencies/public interest but also the genuine personal problems of the public servant liable to be transferred. A balance has to be struck by the employer which is though difficult but not impossible to achieve. Every government in it's capacity as an employer owes it to its employees. If this balance between the administrative exigency and personal inconvenience is kept in mind before every event of transfer, the cause of heart burning amongst public servants under transfer would reduce to the minimum thereby creating a healthy and congenial atmosphere between the employer and employees which in turn contributes greatly to the over all development of the particular institution and as well as the nation."ÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ He has prayed for similar relief to be granted to her as she has already preferred a representation to the respondents, the same is pending consideration and not being taken care of till date. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been relieved till date. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the transfer policy provides that the employee who is generally at the fag end of his service career i.e. only one year is remaining from his date of retirement, he should not generally be transferred. In the present case, the petitioner is due to retire almost after 15-16 months, therefore, the aforesaid clause is not applicable to the case of the petitioner and the transfer is not violative of any of the terms and conditions of the transfer policy, even the transfer is a condition of service and the employee like petitioner is required to comply with the transfer orders, but he could not dispute the fact that in similar matter interference has been made by this Court considering Article 38(1) of the Constitution of India and also the fact that the petitioner is due to retire within 15-16 months. In such circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to re-submit a detailed representation to the respondent No.1 within a period of seven days and in turn, the respondent No.1 is directed to dwell upon the representation and pass a self contained speaking order in the said representation and the outcome be communicated to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this orderG and if the petitioner has not been relieved till date, she may be permitted to continue at the present place of posting i.e. in the office of Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhopal, till the decision on the representation. Needless to mention here that this Court has not commented upon the merits of the case. With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of.' 6. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh detailed representation to the respondent No.2 within a period of seven days and in turn, the respondent No.2 is directed to dwell upon the representation and pass a self contained spea:ing order in the said representation and the outcome be communicated to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. Considering the fact that the petitioner is due to retire on 31.10.2023, he may be permitted to wor: at the present place of posting i.e. Sub Divisional Officer Forest Seoni Malwa (General) Hoshangabad (General) Forest Division till the decision on the representation. 8. Needless to mention here that this Court has not commented upon the merits of the case. 9. With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.